CHAPTER II

1) The great doxology (1:3–12) begins with praise to God, who is the One who begot us again. All hortations that follow grow out of this our relation to God: 1) since he who begot us is holy, we, too, must be holy (1:13–16); 2) since he is our Judge and has ransomed us at so great a price, we must conduct ourselves with fear (1:17–21); 3) since we are begotten of the incorruptible seed of the Word we are brethren, and thus our relation to each other must be one of love, of children of the one Father (1:22–25). So Peter now proceeds to the next hortation: 4) since we have been begotten by means of the eternal Word we should long for the milk of the Word as our true and proper nourishment. We thus see how Peter’s hortations advance step by step in proper order.

Accordingly, having put away from yourselves all baseness and all guile and hypocrisies and envies and all defamations, as newborn babes long for the milk native to the Word, without guile, in order that in connection with it you may be made to grow unto salvation, if you did taste that the Lord is benignant. Οὗν adds this admonition as being one that accords with what has just been said in 1:23–25 about our having been begotten again by means of God’s living and abiding Word. Born anew of the Word, we must be nourished to growth by the Word.

Our having been begotten again means that we have once for all broken with our past life and have started anew in a spiritual life: “having put away from yourselves (aorist: definitely, effectively, as being reborn by the Word) all baseness,” etc. This must be emphasized, for without this decisive break with the past it would be useless for Peter to urge his readers to nourish themselves with the Word. The vices that must be put away are those that pertain to our relation with men. The idea is not that sins that are committed directly against God do not matter, but that our treatment of men is the evidence and the result of our new relation to God. We note that this truth is expressed in 1 John 4:20. It is an easy matter to apply this test in any case, and it is the more proper here where the admonition to the love of the brethren has just preceded. In Matt. 5:23 Jesus, too, bids his hearers to get into the right relation with a fellow man before they try to draw nigh to God.

We should distinguish between κακία, “baseness,” and πονηία, “wickedness,” and hence not translate as the R. V. does. Nor does this word mean “malice” (A. V., R. V. margin); the word means “baseness,” meanness, all good-for-nothingness, and connotes disgracefulness. It includes all the sins against the second table of the law. The rest of the vices are specifications of “all baseness.” “All guile” = craft, cunning, which intends to deceive and to mislead others to their own hurt and to our own supposed advantage, the original meaning of δόλος being a bait for fish. We should group together “all guile and hypocrisies and envies,” for the three “all” introduce three separate groups. One form of guile is hypocrisy toward others (compare the explanation of “unhypocritical” in 1:22). Back of this guile and hypocrisy there is often envy, the ill-will that is stirred up at sight of the good fortune of others. The two plurals indicate the different forms of these sins, which are types of “all baseness.”

The third group, “all defamations” = all speaking against others that runs them down. This is also plural because Peter has begun to use plurals. Like Jesus in Matt. 5:22, Peters stops with the misuse of the tongue and does not add base deeds. It is sufficient to stop with this because defamations are the first outward evidence, and where this is absent, base deeds will not follow. First the tongue lashes out, then the hand or the fist follow.

2) “As just-now-born babes” matches the participles used in 1:3, 23; all three expressions refer to our regeneration and new birth. The ἄρτι, “now or just now,” of this compound verbal is not to be understood in a literal sense: recent converts who are still in the condition of babes and sucklings, who are, therefore, to be fed only milk and not solid food. Peter does not introduce a contrast between milk and solid food such as that mentioned in 1 Cor. 3:2 and Heb. 5:13, 14.

An argument in regard to the length of time Peter’s readers have been Christians that is based on this expression, is unsound. Paul’s work in Galatia and in the province of Asia had been done many years ago, and Peter also includes all of these earliest converts. Peter wants all of his readers, whether they are beginners or veterans in the new life, to act as just-born babes in regard to their longing to be nourished with the Word. The point of the figurative language is this: as a babe longs for nothing but its mother’s milk and will take nothing else, so every Christian should take no spiritual nourishment save the Word. The imagery is beautiful and expressive. Look at a babe at its mother’s breast! In this way you should ever drink the milk of the Word. Peter understood the intent of Jesus’ action which is recorded in Matt. 18:2, 3 and here carries the illustration which Jesus used still farther, down to babes that have just been born.

The rendering of the A. V.: “the sincere milk of the Word,” is truer to the sense than that of the R. V. The crux interpretum is found in the first adjective of the expression τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα. We have no proper English word to render λογικόν, which is found only here and in Rom. 12:1. The opinion that Peter adds this world in order to indicate that “milk” is to be understood figuratively so that we may translate “the spiritual milk,” is unwarranted since the figurative “just-born” babes precedes and needs no addition to convey the idea that it is not to be taken literally. Λογικός is used by secular writers in the sense of “reasonable,” “logical” (see Liddell and Scott for samples); but whereas this might be considered as a meaning in Rom. 12:1, who would think of using it in connection with “milk,” although the R. V. margin does so?

We note that ἄδολον, “guileless,” resumes the idea of δόλος (v. 1); and thus it seems that λογικόν resumes the thought of διὰ λόγου in 1:23 and thus designates this milk as being that of the Word, derived from the Word, or—preferably—as being of the same nature as the Word, say “native to the Word.” We note in support of this view that the first meaning of λογικός is “belonging to speech, capable of speech” (Liddell and Scott), thus here belonging to λόγος, the one mentioned in 1:23: “God’s Word living and abiding.” Word-milk is the meaning. The A. V.’s translation “the milk of the Word” thus approaches Peter’s meaning, considering the fact that the English lacks an adjective such as the Greek has in λογικός, which is derived from λόγος. Compare also such words as ψυχικός (for which we have no English term), πνυεματικός, etc.: belonging to and of the nature of ψυχή (the natural life); belonging to and of the nature of πνεῦμα or spirit, for which word we do have “spiritual.”

By calling this milk λογικόν Peter would state its nature: the milk that belongs to the divine λόγος or Word; by adding ἄδολον he brings out the thought that this milk is unlike that found in any other λόγος: it is without the least guile to mislead or to deceive. All other (human) word (teaching, doctrine, spoken or written) is not “guileless.” This divine Word is; “guileless” states the moral quality of this Word-milk. It is perfectly safe for babes to take although they, being just born, have no ability to be careful as to what they drink. We do not think that ἄδολον means “unadulterated.” As far as the two adjectives are concerned, why should we suppose that only the first and not also the second indicates that “the milk” is figurative, spiritual milk—if such an indication were necessary, which it is not?

“Long for this milk!” Peter writes and uses the decisive aorist imperative exactly as he did in 1:13, 17, 23. These aorists are used because they are stronger than present imperatives would be. Call them constative if you will. The implication is: long for this milk and for none other. Even Christians often hanker after the fleshpots of Egypt and grow tired of the simple, wholesome, saving Word, which is manna for the soul. To cease longing for the divine milk is the most serious sign of spiritual decline, which soon ends in spiritual death. A starved babe pales and dies. Note Ps. 119:20: “My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments at all times.”

“In order that in connection with it you may be made to grow unto salvation” does not mean that the readers cease to be newborn babes and grow up to be men. Paul speaks of childhood and manhood in this way by making full-grown manhood the ideal. Not so Peter. As he states no contrast between milk and solid food, so he has no advance from babes to men. We are ever babes, ever long for this divine milk, and so grow unto salvation, the end of our faith, salvation of souls (1:9). Ἐν means “in connection with” this milk.

We should not extend the idea of the verb αὑξηθῆτε as though it indicates a growth from babyhood to old age. It is an aorist passive and deals only with babes, who grow in the sense of being alive and hearty and thus as babes attain eternal salvation. God makes them grow thus; while the aorist is constative it has its termination only in salvation and not in any stage of growth. Peter’s thought is quite simple and should not be made complex.

3) When Peter attaches the condition of reality: “if you did taste that the Lord is benignant,” he asks his readers to recall their experience with the Lord and counts on the fact that they have found the Lord χρηστός, kind or benignant, bestowing only what is wholesome and pleasant. There is no play on words between χρηστός and Χρηστός, for Peter uses Κύριος, and the adjective that is derived from χράομαι has nothing to do with χρίω, “to anoint, the Anointed.” He alludes to Ps. 34:9: “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good!” Peter is not quoting; he simply appropriates the psalmist’s statement to express his own thought. What is true of Yahweh is equally true of Christ.

Having tasted that the Lord is benignant does not make the Lord “the milk” as some suppose. They overlook the passive verb “be made to grow,” which implies an agent, namely this beneficent Lord. It would be a strange conception to picture the Lord as milk. Nor does Peter say, nor does the psalmist say that we are to taste the Lord but that we are to taste “that he is good,” beneficent in bestowing this precious milk of the Word upon us, in making us grow unto salvation. Do we know of anyone else who has such food for us? What we taste is his benignity, which we experience in his Word. “Taste” is a suitable word for both “milk” and benignity.

4) A new line of thought is begun: from the idea of babes who merely receive the beneficent care of the Lord, Peter advances, with imagery that is entirely different, to living stones in a spiritual house, yea, to holy, royal priests who render acceptable sacrifice. Yet by starting this new line of thought with a relative clause Peter indicates that this and the preceding paragraphs belong together, our experience of the Lord’s care and what he makes of us. He retains the idea of life in the expression “living stones,” the life to which we have been begotten (1:3, 23). He pictures us as “a spiritual house,” namely the Lord’s temple, and advances from that image to the figure of priests serving in this temple. This is, indeed, a distinguished priesthood, especially when we remember what we once were (v. 9b, 10).

The simplicity of the connection by means of a relative clause is admirable. The striking change of figure plus the advance from a house to priests in that house, is no less than grand. This is the great doctrine of the spiritual priesthood of all believers, and that a royal priesthood, one that was long forgotten in Catholicism but was brought fully to light again by Luther and the Reformation.

Four hortations have preceded, but this paragraph is not a hortation. Peter does not urge: “Be such stones, such a house, such a priesthood!” He declares that we are all of this. This means that he now sets forth the basis on which the preceding hortations rest. No wonder he bids us to be holy in all our conduct (1:13–16), to conduct ourselves in fear of God (v. 17–21), to be bound together in love (v. 22–25), to keep only to the Word (2:1–3)—all four hortations growing directly out of our connection with God as children who have been begotten by him. We only point out these things; they deserve our fullest, penetrating study.

Still more is to be said. We are “elect foreigners” in this world and are now fully shown what this means, and why at the beginning of this letter Peter breaks forth in exalted praise of God for what he has made of us who at one time were no people of his at all (v. 10). Our holy relation to God as his holy and royal priesthood makes us foreigners to the profane world. What if the unholy world visits manifold trials, hardships, persecutions upon us to cause us grief (1:6); what are these in comparison with our heavenly birth and our royal, priestly standing with God?

This section closes the first part of Peter’s letter, closes it in the same grand way in which the doxology (1:3–12) began it; and it is now apparent how closely knit this whole first part is, also how perfectly it is adapted to the readers and meets their need as foreigners in this world.

Peter writes: To whom coming, a living stone, by men, indeed, having been on test rejected, with God, however, elect, in honor, you yourselves also as living stones are built a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Is οἰκοδομεῖσθε an indicative passive: “you are being built,” or an imperative passive or middle: “be built” or “build yourselves”? To point to the preceding imperatives as proof for the use of another imperative means to overlook the fact that the four preceding imperatives are aorists, which this fifth would not be. This cannot be accounted for by saying that durative action is now in place whereas such action is not in place in the other imperatives. Quite the contrary; “be setting your hope” (1:13), “be conducting yourselves” (1:17), “be loving” (1:22), “be longing for” (2:2) would be entirely in place if “be built, let yourselves be built, or build yourselves” were intended as a fifth imperative. The argument for another imperative overlooks the fact that we now have a relative clause, and that an imperative is not to be expected in a relative connection. Furthermore, to find an imperative idea in the participle “to whom coming” or in the infinitive “to offer up sacrifices” is unwarranted even if the main verb were imperative.

Then, too, a passive: “be built,” would be incongruous. A command to build would apply only to the builder and order that he build and not to the stones which the builder uses. This is also true in the case of the permissive “let yourselves be built.” Stones do not let themselves be built. “Build yourselves” (middle reflexive) cannot be the sense, for when the verb (or its compound “build up”) is so used, the reflexive pronoun is added as the examples show. This whole paragraph states what God is doing for us and what we now are (note v. 9) in contrast with what we once were (v. 10). Therefore the connection is properly made by means of a relative clause, relative to our connection with Christ, not commanding anything but setting forth our connection with Christ the Lord (v. 3), which includes his Word, which serves as the basis for the four hortations occurring in 1:13–2:3. If we were not being built up as is here stated, if we were not what v. 9 states that we are, such hortations could not be addressed to us.

We may ask why Peter uses such a figure in support of his hortations: a temple and a priesthood which culminate in the grand designations used in v. 9. “Elect,” here and in v. 9, “those once not a people but now God’s people,” (v. 10), “living stones,” and all that is said of Christ and of our connection with him, should lead us to see the pertinency of Peter’s figure and of the Scripture that supports it. We are “elect strangers” in the world (1:1), ours is a “living hope” (1:3); thus we are God’s holy temple and a priesthood in the world and thus foreigners to the world. Looked down upon by the world and subjected to many trials as foreigners, we are in reality foreigners because God has elected and made us far superior to the world (John 15:19–21). It has no use for such a holy temple and such a priesthood, for the world is low and utterly profane. The Christ that is our all the world rejects; to the world he is a stone of stumbling (v. 8). If we follow out these connections, the thought of Peter will rise before us in all its power.

“To whom coming” is merely descriptive without special reference to time; hence the verb is not an aorist, “having come,” which would be historical. Peter needs only to say “to whom coming” since in 1:15 he has mentioned “the One who called you” and has described his readers as “the believers through Christ in God,” 1:21. There is no need of taking the present tense to refer to a constant coming to Christ; it is enough to think of our contact with him, which is also indicated by repetition of the πρός of the participle instead of the usual dative, πρός being the face-to-face preposition as Robertson calls it. God’s gracious call brings us to Christ and makes us believers; and thus “coming to Christ” we are built up, etc.

Λίθον ζῶντα is an apposition to the relative ὅν and describes Christ to whom the readers come. When we translate “a living stone,” this is due only to the helplessness of the English. The absence of the Greek article intends only to stress the qualitative force of the noun “stone,” which the added modifiers make entirely definite so that we may also translate “the living stone,” etc. Peter himself cites the Old Testament passages which describe Christ as “the living stone.” Stones are dead; we even say “stone-dead.” This fact makes the paradox of the living stone all the greater.

There is in reality a double figure in “stone.” There is first a reference to other stones as they are used for a building, and there is secondly a reference to stumbling over a stone (v. 8), which Jesus himself greatly intensifies in Matt. 21:44 by picturing this stone as also falling on the unbeliever and crushing him to powder. “Living” describes this stone as one that is full of life and has all the power of life, for this stone is the person of our Lord. Λίθος, too, is the proper word because a stone that is used for building is referred to. Peter does not use πέτρος, “a rock” or “boulder,” nor πέτρα, embedded rock, which would be fitting only in the case of stumbling (v. 8), compare Rom. 9:33.

Peter quotes Ps. 118:22 (Matt. 21:42), the very passage which he, like Jesus, once used against the Sanhedrin, Acts 4:11: “by men, indeed, (μέν) having been on test rejected, with God, however (δέ), elect, in honor.” There is a contrast between men and God. Peter amplifies: those who first rejected this stone were “the builders” (v. 7), the leaders of Israel, the Sanhedrin; all others who still reject him merely repeat that act of the Jews, hence Peter says rejected “by men.” The perfect participle ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον contains these thoughts: men tested this stone, in their judgment this stone did not meet the test, thus they rejected this stone, and it now remains in this condition, namely tested by them and rejected.

“On the other hand (δέ), with God elect, in honor” does not add the counterpart: “tested by God and approved as genuine” as though God needed to test Christ; no, this stone ever was “with God elect, in honor” (v. 6; Isa. 28:16). God chose this stone in the first place because he knew it was what it was; he prized and honored it accordingly, and there was never a question that it would fulfill its great purpose. By the very tests which these men who reject this stone apply they show that they want only a poor, earthly stone; by their tests and their findings they place themselves most violently in opposition to God.

5) Peter borrows the words “stone,” “rejected,” “elect, in honor” from the Old Testament; but Peter himself adds the paradoxical conception that this wonderful stone is living. This stunning paradox he extends so as to include his readers who, by coming to the living stone, are also no less than “living stones.” Christ himself declares that he is the life (John 14:6; 11:25; compare 1:4); he has life in himself just as the Father has (John 5:25). The truth that those who through God’s call come to Christ as believers are partakers of Christ’s life is likewise frequently declared (John 3:15, 16). The fact that Peter combines this life with the imagery of stones is the striking and significant feature in this connection. Peter uses ὡς as he used it in 1:19. He would not say that his readers are like living stones—for nature has no such stones—but desires to say that they are such stones, strange as this may sound. Yet, after having called Christ “the living stone” to say that the readers καὶ αὑτοί are such living stones takes away some of the newness of the conception, especially when the great predicate is at once added.

When he is speaking of Christ, Peter does not use ὡς but the direct apposition λίθον ζῶντα; when he is speaking of his readers he says ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες. The fact that they are “as living stones” is due to their connection with Christ, “the living stone.” The terms “Christ” and “Christian” show the same similarity of expression. Both of Peter’s expressions become clear and pertinent when we consider the predication “you yourselves are built a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices,” etc. These living stones do not lie about loosely, they constitute a “spiritual house for a holy priesthood,” etc. We have been prepared for this predicate by the preceding participle “coming to the Lord” (Christ). Peter does not go beyond this coming to him; all his readers are joined to Christ and thus are this house; the circumstance that this fact also joins all the readers to each other need not be added.

The agent back of οἰκοδομεῖσθε is God. The present tense, like that of the participle προσερχόμενοι is merely descriptive. Some regard the tense as a progressive present to indicate God’s continuous work in the readers; we deem it better not to understand it as referring to an unfinished house because no priesthood could function in such a temple. At any period of its history the Una Sancta is a completed temple in which God dwells and accepts the sacrifices offered to him. This fact explains why the aorist “were built” would be inappropriate, for that tense would refer only to the historical past as though a certain date when the house was finished were in the mind of the writer; but we could not name such a date.

When these living stones are combined, the result is “a spiritual house,” “the church of the living God,” 1 Tim. 3:15. “Spiritual” is the opposite of material. This word helps us to understand what kind of life is referred to by the participle “living” as we now look at the result of this our coming to Christ. Israel had a material temple, a type and a symbol of the spiritual house that Israel itself was to be yet failed to be. The New Testament church is this true spiritual house of God. Peter does not write ἱερόν, “temple,” because that word would also include the courts and the additional buildings about the sanctuary proper. So he also does not write ναός, “sanctuary,” because that would imply auxiliary structures since a sanctuary was never without these. Οἶκος, “house,” avoids both of these connotations which are not wanted here.

We read the entire predication as a unit: “are built a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices,” etc. We insert no comma. The house and its purpose belong together. In this passage οἶκος does not mean a dwelling for a family; all priests do not dwell in one residence, and still less do they offer up sacrifices in their residences. The reference to “priesthood” and to “sacrifices” makes this house a temple or sanctuary in which God dwells and receives these sacrifices.

The A. V.’s translation omits «s on insufficient textual authority. Its omission causes the incongruity of making “priesthood” an apposition to “house” and thus states that both are built of living stones. A spiritual house “for” a holy priesthood is conceivable; stones built into a priesthood are not. As Paul does in a number of figures, Peter, too, lets the reality dominate the figure and not, as we are often inclined to do, the figure the reality. Thus he does not let the living stones (his readers) be a mere house in which others (who would they be?) offer sacrifices to God; Peter’s readers are “a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer up sacrifices,” etc., i. e., they are both this house and this priesthood; the house and its priesthood are never separated. Hence this is a spiritual house. Ἱεράτευμα is not “priesthood” (abstract) in the sense of priestly office, although this idea would simplify the thought, but the whole body of priests (concrete).

The distinction between high priest and common priests no longer exists since one is our High Priest forever, who, after offering up himself once for all, has passed into the heavens. So all believers now constitute the priesthood on earth. No longer are some persons priests while many more are the people for whom such priests function. All of the material, bloody sacrifices have been abolished; all believers have the same right of direct priestly access to God, all of their sacrifices are now purely “spiritual.” Credit Luther with bringing this great Scriptural fact to light once more and let no self-constituted priesthood ever insert itself between us believers and God! “Holy priesthood” = separated unto God. We are constantly called ἅγιοι, “holy ones” (saints), in Holy Writ (1:15, 16); this is sometimes changed to ἡγιασμένοι, “they who have been made holy,” have been cleansed and sanctified by the truth (John 17:17–19) in justification and in a new life.

The main task of the Old Testament priests was the offering of material, animal sacrifices, all of which pointed to Christ’s great sacrifice to come. These are no longer needed since Christ offered his all-sufficient sacrifice once for all. Now there remain for God’s holy priesthood only the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, seeing that all the treasures of God’s grace are now poured out upon us through Christ. Thus Peter writes regarding all his readers: “to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ,” ἀνενέγκαι, aorist, derived from ἀναφέρειν, to carry or bring up on the altar of their hearts. The aorist infinitive is effective: actually to bring. “Spiritual sacrifices” matches “spiritual house,” the adjectives are placed chiastically, the repetition emphasizes the fact that everything in the relation of the readers to God through Christ is now altogether spiritual.

Regarding these sacrifices note Heb. 13:15: “Through him, therefore, let us keep offering up sacrifice of praise constantly to God, that is, fruit of lips confessing his name; moreover, the doing of good and fellowship do not be forgetting, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” Rom. 12:1: “To present your bodies a living sacrifice well pleasing to God.” Paul uses “living” much as Peter does. Phil. 4:18: “An odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.” Rev. 8:3: “The prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne.” The public preaching of the Word is not included among these sacrifices of the universal priesthood of believers because, although this work is also to be rendered as a sacrifice to God, a special call to perform this duty is necessary, and it is allotted only to those who are thus specifically called.

These sacrifices are “acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” because they are rendered in his name and for his honor as evidences and fruits of the life he has begotten in us (1:3, 23). “Through Jesus Christ” = their acceptance is mediated wholly through him (διά to express mediation). We approach God only through Christ, on the strength of his sacrifice for us; and he and his sacrifice cover up all imperfections that still cling to our sacrifices. It should be generally known that Masonry uses this passage from Peter in its ritual; but it significantly omits this last phrase “through Jesus Christ” and thus certifies to its own anti-Christian character.

Peter’s words suggest an implied contrast with the Old Testament people of God: they had a house of God, but we ourselves are now the house; their temple was built of dead stones, we are living stones; they approached God through a priesthood, we ourselves are the priesthood; they offered up material sacrifices, ours are purely spiritual. Rome insists that we must still approach God through a specific priesthood, the papal hierarchy; others have similar ideas about the office of the ministry being an intermediary between the believers and God. Regarding these errors compare C. Tr. 523, 63–69.

6) What Peter has just said is contained already in the Old Testament prophecies which speak of Christ as a wonderful stone. God would lay this stone, and the prophecies state what this stone and God’s laying of it mean for those who believe as well as for those who reject this stone and are disobedient in unbelief. These quotations are not to be regarded as a proof for what Peter says in vs. 4, 5. We see at a glance that they contain nothing about the priesthood and the sacrifices of believers. All of the citations deal with Christ as the great stone elect and honored by God, our blessed relation to this stone, and this stone’s effect on those who reject it. We may thus say that Peter proves from Scripture that Christ is, indeed, the living stone (v. 4). But this is too narrow a view, for these Old Testament passages elucidate and add to what Peter himself says about this stone. Peter lets the Old Testament Scriptures speak for him instead of himself saying what they contain. Verses 4, 5 are expository of v. 6–8, the latter also being expository of the former. This is the object of the quotations; vs. 4–8 are a unit.

After we understand the purpose of these quotations, their form of citation will also become clear to us. Peter takes three passages which have the figure of the stone or rock. Since he is concerned about the substance of the thought, verbatim accuracy would be pedantic, interpretative rendering is what Peter offers just as we to this day adapt the wording of a quotation for the purpose we may have in hand save in regard to those words which are essential for our purpose. The formula διότι περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ thus states no more than that the quotations are found somewhere in the Scripture. The verb is impersonal, the connective indicates that Scripture warrants the way in which Peter speaks of Christ in v. 4, 5.

The Hebrew reads: “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; he that believes shall not make haste.” The LXX renders ad sensum and interpretatively: “Behold I lay for the foundations of Zion a stone of great value, elect, corner-head, precious, for her foundations; and he who believes on me shall not be ashamed.” Peter cites only what he needs for his purpose: “stone” and “elect, precious,” which he uses in v. 4; then the elucidating adjective ἀκρογωνιαῖον, “as corner-head,” plus the clause about the one believing (in v. 4: “to whom coming,” i. e., in faith). Peter does not make use of the two references to “the foundations” (LXX, τὰ θεμέλια). He does not follow Eph. 2:20; only after a fashion does he follow 1 Cor. 3:11, 12 where Paul makes Christ the entire foundation without reference to a cornerstone. Peter speaks of his readers as being built up, as living stones, as forming a spiritual house. Thus he retains from Isaiah the adjective which speaks of the cornerstone and indicates that the prophecy contains the same conception, which is sufficient for Peter. His interest lies in the purpose of this house or building which is intended “for a holy priesthood” (v. 5), to which he reverts in vs. 9, 10. We thus see the pertinency of the way in which he uses Isa. 28:16.

This figure is often misunderstood; it is thought that the cornerstone merely joins two walls, Jewish and Gentile Christians, as if these were the foundation whereas Christians are the house, Zion (a name for the church). Or it is thought that the whole house is carried or is held together by the cornerstone. Or that the cornerstone is the first one to be laid at the bottom of the excavation, or the one last laid to complete the foundation. The cornerstone is the significant stone of the entire structure. Hence it is idealized, and we still lay it with a special ceremony as we lay no other stone. It governs all the angles and all the lines of both the foundation and the building and is thus placed at the head of the corner, i. e., to form the projecting (not the inner) angle.

Peter retains the LXX’s translation of the second line: “the one believing shall not be ashamed,” which is interpretative of the Hebrew “shall not make haste or flee,” for the one who must hurry away in flight does so because he is ashamed, his misplaced faith ends in bitter disappointment, and he thus hastens to get away and to hide. The negation is a litotes: the one who rests his faith and confidence on Christ (ἐπί is the proper preposition) shall stand solid and safe forever.

7) At this point Peter himself interprets: “for you, accordingly, is the honor as the ones believing.” Both ὑμῖν at the beginning and τοῖς πιστεύουσιν at the end have the emphasis, the latter thus also being juxtaposed in sharp contract with ἀπιστοῦσι. Despised as the readers are in the world as merely tolerated foreigners (1:1), all this honor with which God honors Christ devolves also on them as the ones believing on Christ. Joined as living stones to Christ, the living stone, his honor is also theirs. They need never be ashamed; everywhere in the world they are the spiritual house for God’s priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God. Honor, indeed! But all of it comes through Christ alone.

In sharp contrast to these believers Paul sets “such as disbelieve.” He omits the article in order to stress the quality more. But he now weaves the quotations into his own statement “but to such as disbelieve ‘the stone which those building did on test reject, this one became corner-head’ (Ps. 118:22), and ‘A stone of stumbling and a rock entrapment’ (Isa. 8:14), who stumble,” etc. This wondrous stone means everything also to any and to all who refuse to believe: their rejection is fatal to them. In the first place, God nullifies their rejection and makes this stone the corner-head; in the second place, this stone destroys them.

The first passage reads like a brief parable. There was a certain stone, and there were builders busily at work. For the kind of building they were planning they took many stones, but this particular stone they considered totally unfit, maʾam, “to reject,” LXX, ἀποδοκιμάζεις, “to reject after a test,” the same verb that was used in v. 4. Yet, strange to say, this stone “became corner-head.” We know how it became this; the psalmist adds that it is Yahweh’s doing, marvelous in our eyes. It was done in spite of the builders. Delitzsch states that roʾsh phinnah cannot be translated “cornerstone,” but Eduard Koenig in his excellent Woerterbuch defines “head of the corner = cornerstone” exactly as the LXX). So we do not accept such definitions as the stone at the top of the gable, the keystone of the arch, the capstone of a pillar at the eaves where the gable starts, also those listed in connection with v. 6.

The prophecy of the psalm has in mind the Jewish Sanhedrin when it speaks of “those building.” And, for what they wanted to make of Israel Jesus was, indeed, wholly unfit. They wanted a political house in which they could continue their secular domination of Israel and extend their power over the Gentiles. The Jewish nation followed them in disbelief. Peter applies the prophecy of the psalm to all who still repeat this disbelief and this rejection. The two verbs ἀπεδοκίμασαν and ἐγενήθη, “did reject,” “did become,” are prophetic aorists, both speak of the coming fact as being already history. Note what Jesus adds to the prophecy in Matt. 21:44 and in Luke 20:18.

8) With a simple “and” Peter borrows a double designation of Christ for such as disbelieve from Isa. 8:14: “A stone of stumbling and a rock of entrapment.” Peter wants only these two designations; λίθος, “stone,” is again mentioned but is now elucidated by πέτρα, “a rocky mass or cliff.” Both terms reveal the destructive effect of Christ; the genitives are qualitative. Πρόσκομμα is not a word that expresses an action, “stumbling,” but a term that indicates a result as the suffix -μα (R. 151) shows: the smash or crash accomplished. Since the two designations are synonymous, this stone is not one against which the disbelievers strike merely a foot and are thrown down and rise up more or less hurt, but one against which they strike with the entire body in a dreadful crash which knocks out their brains. This stone λίθος, a dressed stone to be placed in the foundation) is of vast size; it is the cornerstone of the whole Una Sancta. Its character for unbelievers is marked by this frightful effect. Look at Israel (Rom. 9:33); it is shattered, broken, demolished completely as Isaiah foretold.

In πέτρα the idea of a stone for the purpose of building is dropped, and only the idea of size is retained; it is a great rocky cliff, and the genitive σκανδάλου, “entrapment,” brings out fully the thought of the deadliness of this rocky mass for all disbelievers. A skandalon is the crooked stick of a trap, to which the bait is affixed, by which the trap is sprung that kills the victim. If we translate metaphorically “offense,” it is offense with a deadly effect, from which recovery is impossible. The idea of luring or enticing into the deadly trap with bait is included. In Isa. 8:14 the figures of the gin and the snare are added; both are also deadly to the victim. To state that a rocky cliff does not act as a deadly trap is to forget the fact that the reality governs the figure and not the figure the reality. Strange, indeed! Men cannot let this rock alone by simply walking past it, by wholly ignoring it; unbelievers are drawn to it as to a deadly trap, they are lured to run against this towering rock and kill themselves.

Continuing with his own words, Peter adds the relative clause: “they who stumble against the Word by being disobedient, for which they also were appointed,” and thus further describes “such as disbelieve” which was stated in v. 7. Peter uses only the thought that is expressed in πρόσκομμα but would also include that suggested by σκάνδαλον. All who disbelieve “smash against (anprallen, B.-P. 1149) the Word by being disobedient.”

Some German commentators and the R. V. margin construe τῷ λόγῳ with the participle: “to the Word being disobedient.” They do this because they think that after “stone of stumbling” “the Word” cannot be named as that against which these disobedient ones stumble unless Peter intends to identify “stone” and “the Word.” They overlook the fact that Peter’s relative clause advances the thought. How do these people come into hostile contact with Jesus as “a stone of stumbling,” etc.? By means of “the Word.” They stumble against Christ when they run foul of the Word, stumble against that. Stone and Word are not identified in Peter’s explanatory clause, yet τῷ λόγῳ is to be Construed With οἱ προσκόπτουσι.

“By being disobedient” is thus properly added as showing how they run against the Word: they refuse to obey that Word which brings Christ to them. They refuse to cling to the Rock of Ages. Although disbelieving and disobeying are different concepts, the second elucidates the first. Eve disbelieved the plain Word of God by disobeying it. The worst type of disobedience is disbelief. The will of God is that we believe on him whom he has sent for our salvation (John 6:40); his will is found in the Word. To believe is, first of all, to obey.

It is startling to read: “for which they also were placed (set, appointed).” Calvinists explain this as an eternal decree of reprobation, all Scripture to the contrary notwithstanding. They place the action of the verb in the voluntas antecedens whereas it belongs in the voluntas consequents. The former does not take into account man’s reaction to Christ and to the Word; the latter does as Mark 16:16 plainly states. God cannot and will not change either Christ or his Word. He will certainly not remove this great stone and rock, his Son, our Savior, to please wicked men; that would entail to abandon all men to damnation. So when, after God’s grace is brought to men to save them by faith, they reject this grace and God’s Savior they are to be crushed and destroyed. This Christ is “set for the fall of many, a sign which shall be spoken against” in disobedient unbelief, Luke 2:34. He that believeth not shall be damned.

9) After having thus fully described the “living stone” with which Peter begins in v. 4 he proceeds to the “holy priesthood” which he mentioned in v. 5 by developing this as it is to be applied to his readers: You, however, (are) a race elect, a royal priesthood, a nation holy, a people for possession in order that you may announce abroad the fame of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light—those once no people, now, however, God’s people—those not having been granted mercy, now, however, granted mercy. From a wide range of Old Testament passages the apostle selects these illustrious designations and applies them to his readers. They are, indeed, “foreigners” to the world (1:1; 2:11), but, lo, what “elect foreigners” (1:1)! Let the world treat them as outsiders, theirs is the most sacred aristocracy.

“A race elect” recalls such passages as Deut. 7:6, 7; Isa. 43:10, 20; 44:1, 2, “elect” is applied also to Christ, the cornerstone, in 2:6. As God chose Abraham and the Abrahamitic nation, so the readers are now “a race elect.” Israel was chosen on the condition that it should abide in God’s covenant, and when it hardened itself in unbelief, God rejected this race and expelled it out of Canaan as a standing sign for all time. In Peter’s readers his grace prevails as believing ones (v. 7), and so they are “a race elect” among all the races of the world. Peter refers to their present state. With the terms “race, priesthood, nation, people,” Peter considers his readers as one body, as belonging to the great Una Sancta on earth. Natural descent and all other differences are obliterated, swallowed up by the spiritual condition and status of the readers. How happy they should be to read what the apostle calls them!

“A royal priesthood” as well as “a holy nation” and “a people for possession” allude to Exod. 19:5, 6, where we read, “a kingdom of priests,” “a holy nation,” “a peculiar treasure unto me above all people.” With the words “royal priesthood” Peter resumes the “holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (v. 5). “Elect race,” elected to be no less than a priesthood, which is already high, yea, a “royal,” “kingly” priesthood. As was already stated in v. 5, priests have the right and the authority to approach God directly, no one is to speak to God for them, or come between them and God.

The fact that these priests (Peter’s readers) are priests in the true sense of the word, men who offer sacrifices, v. 6 has already shown. Without the work of offering up sacrifices no one is a priest. This basic conception is not elaborated here; another idea is added and even emphasized, namely that we occupy so high a position that no man can be higher in this life: as a “priesthood,” a body that is made up entirely of priests, no man stands between us and God, and as a body of “royal” priests no man stands over us in our relation to God. The adjective as well as the noun reveal in a double way the exaltation of our position and our function, the constant direct, immediate contact with God.

While Exodus 19 describes Israel, too, as being “a kingdom of priests,” Israel still had its Levitical priesthood with its many ceremonial sacrifices, who functioned between Israel and God and were placed over the people in their contact with God. This priesthood was, however, only temporary, provisional, represented and typified the eternal priesthood of the royal Priest, Christ. Although Israel was “a kingdom of priests,” etc., (Exodus 19), it was not yet such a body of priests in the fullest sense of the word; the complete “royal priesthood” in the fullest sense of this designation could not appear until our “great High Priest’s” (Heb. 4:14) work had been done. Then the provisional Levitical priesthood came to an end.

The expression used in Exodus 19, “a kingdom of priests,” and Peter’s wording, “a royal priesthood,” emphasize a feature that is far above all that we find in the Levitical and Aaronitic priesthood of Israel. This priesthood was not royal, kingly. None of those who functioned in it were kings. When it was established at Sinai, and the Tabernacle was built, Israel had no kings; centuries elapsed before Israel received its first king, Saul. “A royal priesthood” takes us back to Melchizedek (Heb. 7:1, etc.) who was both king and priest, whom Abraham himself honored accordingly, who typified Christ who was King and Priest in one, who was not from the tribe of Levi but of Judah as Hebrews explains all of this. “A royal priesthood” thus connects us directly via Melchizedek with the King-priest, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we offer up our sacrifices accepted of God (v. 5). He has made us “a kingdom,” “priests” (Rev. 1:6; 5:10). Our royalty and our priestliness are derived from our relation to him alone.

Both the adjective and the noun denote our objective standing with God through Christ. This we are to realize fully. All too few do so. Learn to think of yourself as highly as Peter and as John do. The fact that our character and our conduct should be according is self-evident, but there is an application we should make. The basic concept is found in the noun “priesthood,” the addition is the adjective “royal”; hence the thought is not: “a kingdom consisting entirely of priests”; but: “priests who are royal” like Melchizedek and thus like Christ. But the noun and the adjective are a unified concept like the other designations used in this verse, “race elect” and “a nation holy”; there is no man between us and God, no being over us save God. See the author’s little volume, Kings and Priests, where much more is added from Scripture.

“A holy nation” is one that is wholly separated from the unholy and dedicated to God (1:15, 16; Exod. 19:6). Ἔθνος is the regular word for “nation” which is also used when speaking of the Jews as a national body. It aptly describes Peter’s readers. Although they have come from many earthly nations, spiritually they now formed a distinct, “holy,” superior, and exalted nation, and thus were “foreigners” among the common, earthly nations (1:1 and 2:11). By way of application we may say that we should completely give up the desire “to be like other people,” for this would cause us to lose our standing with God. Our holiness is obtained by imputation and, resting on this, by acquisition (Eph. 5:26, 27).

The fourth term: λαὸς εἰς περιπίησιν, “a people for possession,” also harks back to Exod. 19:5: “a peculiar treasure unto me above all people”; Deut. 7:6: “a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth”; Mal. 3:17: “They shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels (margin: special treasure).” Similarly Paul writes λαὸς περιούσιος in Titus 2:14, “a people select.” Περιποίησις = the act of possessing as one’s own. We are bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23) and thus are in God’s possession. Δαός is the proper word; it is often used in a sort of sacred sense with reference to the people of Israel. All four nouns: “race, priesthood, nation, people,” are collectives, each has its own connotation, all of them include the whole Una Sancta, the communion of saints.

It would be a mistake to suppose that we can be all that Peter states and at the same time sit down quietly and contemplate our honor and our excellence. These are not static but dynamic terms; they include what Peter puts into the purpose clause, in which we may read an undertone of admonition: “in order that you may announce abroad (announce effectively, aorist) the fame of the one who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” This is what v. 5 means when it states: “To offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” A commoner way of stating this same truth is that used by Jesus: to confess him or his name before men. Peter uses the thought of Isa. 43:21 (compare 42:12):“This people have I formed for myself, that they show forth my praise.”

On the meaning of ἀρετή (the singular occurs in 2 Pet. 1:3; the plural here) in secular and in Scriptural usage we refer the student to G. K. 457, etc.; B.-P., 166. Suffice it to say that here, where Peter repeats Isa. 43:21: “they shall show forth my praise,” the rendering “praises” (A. V.) is to the point (not “virtues,” A. V. margin), not “excellencies” (R. V.), but the plural of the German Ruhm, “fame,” which we do not pluralize although we may say “all the fame.” The genitive indicates what fame and praise are referred to: “of the One who called us,” etc., (1:15). Because of what we are it is our great function that by word and by deed, by our confession and by our conduct we at all times and under all circumstances publish in our own midst and to all men about us him who called us out of darkness, etc. Ἐκ in the verb gives it the meaning announce “out” or “abroad.” True believers cannot keep still, they simply must speak out with lip and with life. Thus they function as a royal priesthood and ever offer up sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. This is the confessional and the missionary spirit and activity of God’s people; for the sake of this God lets us remain in the world.

“Darkness” is the terrible state of the world under the prince of darkness, the state of blindness, lifelessness, death, in which the world still lies. God’s call, operating through the gospel, brought us out of this state “into his marvelous light,” the light of truth, life, blessedness which are found in his kingdom of grace. Instead of hiding the fact that we are foreigners in this world we proclaim it and tell with delight who has made us what we are and how he has done what he did. Is this divine purpose being carried out by you? Supply the applicatory thoughts yourself.

10) Peter closes with a double, most effective apposition: “those once no people, now, however, God’s people; those not having been mercied, now, however, mercied.” Peter adapts expressions found in Hosea 2:23 to his own use, compare Deut. 32:21. We see what God has done for the readers: “once a non-people” (οὑ negates λαός), not a people in any sense, nothing but sheep without a shepherd; “now God’s people,” the extreme opposite. All who are far from God and Christ are a non-people spiritually; only those who come to Christ (v. 4) are a real people, God’s people, he being their King, Savior, Protector, Provider, Benefactor.

The inwardness of this thought is brought out by the second apposition. “Those not having been mercied,” with the perfect passive participle, are those who during the past were left in their sad condition for a long time. Peter again (1:3) uses the thought of “mercy” and not that of “grace” because he thinks of the wretched consequences which sin produces. Those who believe that the readers of this epistle were former Jews and not former Gentiles encounter a difficulty here; Peter could not say of Jews that they have not been granted mercy. In Rom. 9:25 Paul, too, applies Hosea’s phrases to former Gentiles. The aorist in the expression “now, however, mercied” may simply indicate the past historical fact or may be ingressive: “got mercy bestowed on them.”

Beloved, I urge that as outsiders and foreigners you hold yourselves aloof from fleshly lusts which are of a kind that campaign against the soul, having your conduct among the Gentiles excellent in order that in what they speak against you as doers of baseness, due to your excellent works, when they look upon (them), they may glorify God in the day of visitation.

Peter urges his readers to keep away from all fleshly lusts for the sake of their own souls and so to conduct themselves in their pagan surroundings that the very thing for which they are slandered may make these slanderers glorify God when he visits them with his grace. We readily see that Peter turns to a different set of admonitions, and that this first admonition is preliminary and comprehensive.

Here and in 4:12 he employs the address ἀγαπητοί, “beloved.” He draws his readers closely to his heart with intelligent, purposeful love, a love that will call forth a corresponding love and a readiness to obey. Παρακαλῶ = I urge, admonish, exhort, comfort, according to the context; here the first meaning is the best; “beseech” is not correct. In 1:3 Peter has used the term παρεπίδημοι, “foreigners”; he now doubles this by adding πάροικοι, “outsiders.” In Heb. 11:9 we have the verb: Abraham “lived as an outsider” in Canaan, the land that God had willed to him in his testament. A paroikos is one who dwells beside the native citizens, who is allowed to do so under restricted rights which are less than those granted the citizens. We have seen how Christians have become such outsiders and foreigners to the people among whom they have always dwelt and together with whom they are actually citizens of the land in which they dwell: their new relation to God has made them aliens, and the doubling of the nouns emphasizes this fact.

Peter, therefore, urges them “to hold themselves aloof from fleshly lusts.” The Gentiles among whom they live are natives of the world and thus follow the promptings of the flesh and its many lusts; σαρκικός=κατὰ σάρκα, what accords with flesh, “fleshly”; σάρκινος=σὰρξ ὤν, what is flesh, “fleshy.” Right here we see how Christians appear as outsiders and aliens to their Gentile neighbors: they hold themselves aloof from these neighbors in regard to all such lusts, they are spiritual in their nature and their conduct, no longer fleshly. There is a gulf between them and their neighbors.

Αἵτινες is both qualitative and causal (R. 728): these lusts are of such a kind and for that reason campaign against the soul like a στράτευμα or army. The verb used is not πολεμεῖν, “to war,” but στρατεύεσθαι, “to engage in a campaign,” and personifies these fleshly lusts which intend to capture the soul in order to enslave and to destroy it. The appeal of this relative clause is one of spiritual self-interest.

12) Since Peter has a participle follow the infinitive, we see that ἀπέχεσθαι and the danger to our souls are the supreme thought, and that ἔχοντες, which stresses the interest of the other people whom we may be able to influence for good, is dependent on the safety of our own souls. Peter has already admonished his readers in regard to “conduct” in their relation to God and has used the same word that is here employed, ἀναστροφή (1:15, 18); here he stresses the fact that their conduct “among the Gentiles” must ever be καλή, morally excellent, noble, the adjective conveying the thought that it is even admirable in the eyes of those pagans who have any moral sense left. The word ἔθνη does not make Peter’s readers former Jews. Peter says nothing about conduct toward unconverted Jews. “Gentiles” is used in the religious sense of pagans, “a non-people” as far as God is concerned, such as Peter’s readers themselves were before they got to be mercied of God (v. 10) and became Christians.

The purpose of such noble conduct is this, that these pagans “in what they speak against you as doers of baseness may (in this very thing), due to the noble works, when they look upon them, glorify God in the day of visitation.” The relative phrase “in which thing” is to be construed with both verbs: the thing in connection with which they at first speak against you, in connection with that very thing they may eventually glorify God when the day of their visitation arrives, i. e., when God looks in on them with his mercy and brings them to conversion. The relative is neuter and singular and thus does not resume the feminine “conduct,” nor is it the same as “the noble works,” which is plural. The relative refers to this thing, that Peter’s readers have become outsiders and foreigners to their pagan neighbors, have deserted the pagan gods for the true God, have become all that v. 9 records of them. This arouses the hostility of the pagan community; in connection with it (ἐν) they speak against you as κακοποιοί, “bad actors,” which does not mean “criminals” but persons who do what is bad, base, good-for-nothing.

There is no need to extend the meaning of the word nor to specify the charges that were brought against the readers. In any case, when a number of people in a pagan city cut markedly loose from the rest and adopt a religion that condemns the old religion of the rest as radically as the Christian faith condemns paganism, this minority will certainly hear themselves called bad actors in the whole matter. At the time when Peter writes this hostility was being intensified since Nero himself and the capital of the empire were beginning no longer to regard Christianity as a part of Judaism, which was tolerated and privileged, but as a religio illicita (see the introduction). The provinces would follow the attitude of Rome and of Nero. Christians were thus bound to be “spoken against as bad actors” more than ever.

Yet, ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων, as the result or outcome of the excellent works of the readers when they conduct themselves among their pagan neighbors in a morally excellent way, when these pagans look upon these excellent works (the participle needs no object in the Greek), they will in many cases be so impressed as themselves to be drawn to Christianity, become converted as Peter’s readers were converted, and will thus actually (aorist) glorify God when this day of grace arrives for them. The good works of true believers have a strong missionary power. Deeds that are done by consistent conduct speak louder than words. Deeds that re-enforce doctrine, the gospel in both Word and life, draw men to God through Jesus Christ. Worldly Christians hinder home missionary work. Note that καλός is repeated; it is once found in the comprehensive singular “excellent conduct” and then in the multiplied plural “excellent works.”

The addition ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς excludes the thought that these pagans glorify God only by praising the noble works of the Christians while they remain pagans. The expression “glorify τὸν Θεόν, the true God,” is too strong for that thought; still stronger is the phrase “in the day of visitation,” which recalls Luke 19:44: “because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.” Isa. 10:3 has the phrase, Jeremiah has much to say about God’s visitation, others, too, mention it. God visits also with punishment, but here, as in Luke 19, the visitation takes place when God looks upon a person with grace and mercy (v. 10b). To think of the last day is not in the line of the thought; likewise to compromise: glorify God at the last day as people whom God has converted during their day of life on earth. Peter is restating the word of Jesus spoken in Matt. 5:16: “that they may see your excellent works and may glorify your Father, the One in the heavens.”

This brief but comprehensive summary heads the following admonitions, all of which deal with our relations to men while the relation to God (1:13–2:10) is ever kept in mind. In these relations our own soul’s interest is vital, and it is this for the sake of the glory of God and the salvation of other men.

13) We do not think that Peter follows an abstract outline and thus starts with obedience to the government. Peter’s readers were, of course, under a pagan government, and the question was always asked in how far and on what principle God’s people should obey pagan rulers. The question became acute when Christians were spoken against as κακοποιοί, “bad actors,” and were treated as such by the government when some of them were accused and indicted before the authorities. There was more danger of this at the time when Peter writes, and it is thus that he takes up this subject.

The aorist imperative is as decisive and as strong as the aorists used in 1:13, 17, 22; 2:2; the passive of ὑποτάσσω is used in the middle sense. Κτίσις = creation, here “every human creation” in the sense of “every human institution” created by man. Some stress the point that government is here said to be human as though this were a view that is different from Paul’s: “there is no authority except from God.” Peter is said to be a republican, Paul a monarchist, so that Peter would represent the modern view of government as emanating from the people and not the view of rule by divine right. But this supposed difference is specious. Paul says that the ἐξουσία in all government, whatever its human form may be, is of divine origin, a statement that Peter would not think of contradicting. Peter is not speaking of the source of the ἐξουσία or “authority” in government but of its form, which is, indeed, “a human creation,” that has a king as supreme and governors who are sent through him and govern in his name.

No special form of government is advocated by the New Testament. Peter deals with the human form as it was then existing in the Roman empire, Nero being the Caesar who is included under βασιλεύς ὡς ὑπερέχων: “whether a king as supreme.” It also includes his “governors,” no matter whether they were legati Augusti, proconsuls, procurators, or had some other title. While the citizens of Rome refused to call the emperor rex, the Greek-speaking people of the empire commonly called him “king.”

14) We need not hesitate to connect the εἰς phrase only with “governors.” They were sent by the king “for vengeance on doers of baseness and praise on doers of good” (Rom. 13:3, 4). They were to act as the king’s representatives in this double function, and thus the phrase need not modify “king” who certainly, by appointing these governors, himself aimed to punish evil men and to praise good men. The absence of the article makes all the nouns qualitative. Peter uses κακοποιοί, the same word that was used in v. 12; the context differs; in v. 12 the Christians are vilified as bad actors, in v. 14 the bad actors are proven to be such in court. Ancient rulers, too, had praise for good men and often honored them in a public way as governments in all lands still do.

Peter speaks of the rulers in their normal functions as Paul does in Rom. 13. What Peter has to say when rulers become tyrannous his early record shows, Acts 4:19; 5:29. The way in which Peter speaks of the functions of rulers has been used to prove that his readers were in no danger at the present time, and that no danger from the government was threatening in the near future. But v. 12 sounds a different note.

Nor is the present paragraph on government merely abstract and theoretical. Christians need admonition regarding government when government is likely to turn against them; they are then to be admonished that their course of conduct is not to be rebellion but submission. To extend this submission to the point of denying the faith on a ruler’s demand is obviously wrong even if we did not have Acts 4:19 and 5:29. The submission is to be the normal one, always διὰ τὸν Κύριον, “because of, for the sake of the Lord,” which we regard as meaning more than that the Lord’s name may not be vilified; Paul says “for conscience’s sake,” a conscience bound by the Lord (i. e., Christ).

Peter does not say: “Submit because your submission is God’s will.” That fact has already been said in a much finer way; it has not been given by a legal command but by an appeal to a gospel motive: “for the Lord’s sake.” What Peter makes prominent is one particular reason for submission for the Lord’s sake, namely that what God has willed (θέλημα, a term expressing a result) is οὕτως “so” or “thus,” as follows, namely “that by doing good you keep muzzling the ignorance of foolish men,” such as try to speak against you as doers of baseness (v. 12). Οὕτως is not τοῦτο, “this”; the adverb cannot refer backward: “thus by submitting yourselves,” because God never considered the alternative that his people would not be subject to human institutions such as government, and because on already points forward to the reason for submission, namely the form of what God willed.

The infinitive is not in apposition to οὕτως (R. 1078) or to θέλημα but to both, to “so is the will of God that,” etc. God wants us to do good irrespective of foolish men, for the highest kind of reasons in regard to himself as well as also to ourselves; it is only incidental, secondary, that his will is as it is, that by our doing good we muzzle the ignorance of foolish men who seek to find something base in our deeds and in their ignorance do not see that all baseness is lacking. Τοῦτο would change the sense and leave the impression that this muzzling is a main reason for our doing good.

The infinitive means “to muzzle” and only metaphorically “to silence.” The original meaning is in place, for these ignoramuses want to bite us like dogs. Our constant doing good acts like a constant muzzling. “Ignorance” implies that they ought to have more sense; moreover, it is a mild judgment and recalls the not knowing voiced in Luke 23:34, the ignorance mentioned in Acts 3:17; 1 Tim. 1:13. The durative “keep muzzling” appears to imply a constant tendency to bark and to bite.

16) The addition “as free,” etc., is still subordinate. The nominative is not a change of construetion, for this continues the subject of ὑποτάγητε and not the implied accusative subject of φιμοῦν; nor is μή due to the imperative, it is the common negative with participles. We subject ourselves to government for the Lord’s sake as being perfectly free and in no way as slaves to men; how free Acts 4:19 and 5:29 indicate. Καί is important. It is not δέ, “but,” for our very freedom is this, that we do not have this our freedom “as a veil for baseness,” practice some sort, of baseness behind this veil in secret. See Gal. 5:1, 13. The word is not “cloak” but veil, and κακία is the same word that was used in the compounds found in v. 12 and 14; it is not “maliciousness” (A. V.), “malice,” “wickedness” (R. V. and margin), but “baseness” as already explained. “Free,” indeed, “but as slaves of God,” whom he has bought for his own (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23), who have no will of their own but obey only the will of their master, God. This slavery to God is the truest and most complete human freedom; all other so-called freedom is fiction.

17) Some commentators are puzzled because Peter concludes this hortation with an aorist imperative plus three present imperatives, only the last of which deals with government. This is not a sudden broadening beyond government that returns to the main point in the last imperative; this is not saying that loving the brethren and fearing God are not in conflict with honoring the king and the government. Peter specifies how we are to do good so as to shut the mouths of ignorant men. Honor all! This is the decisive aorist which we have in 1:13, 17, 22; 2:2, 13. Peter separates and puts the next three imperatives into a group by themselves and makes them durative presents.

Keep loving the brotherhood! This is the same injunction that is found in 1:22 save for the tense, “love” is to be taken in the same sense, compare Heb. 13:1. The limitation is the same as that found in Gal. 6:10: to those who are one with us we are able to show manifestations of love which we cannot show to others; the same is true also with regard to God and his children. “Brotherhood” conceives all the brethren as one body. Keep fearing God!—“in fear” (1:17), avoiding all sin and disobedience to him. Keep honoring the king! i. e., as a king, as one in this office. It is mentioned in the singular because we honor one in this office in a distinct way and not as we honor all men in general.

18) In Paul’s admonitions to different classes of members slaves have the last place; Peter speaks of them first because, as his readers were under pagan rulers, so Christian slaves were under pagan masters. Peter does not call them δοῦλοι or slaves as Paul does but οἰκέται, “houseslaves,” who belong to the οἶκος or familia; this term is like the Latin famulus or our “domestic.” There were many slaves throughout the empire, and when Christianity was preached to them, many slaves were converted to it. The subject of slavery is a large subject, both as to the nature of slavery in the empire and as to the attitude of Christianity toward slavery. See The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon.

The houseslaves, continuing in subjection in all fear to the masters, not only to the good and gentle but also to the perverse! In this way they are to conduct themselves as Christians in their station of life. The sentence has no finite verb, the nominative participle is not intended as a verb, nor is ἐστέ or εἰσί to be supplied, for the participle merely continues the idea of ὑποτάγητε expressed in v. 13.

We have the same construction in 3:1 regarding “wives,” and in 3:7, 8 it is also extended to other participles that no longer continue the idea of subjection. This is good Greek, the desire being to make all of these admonitions a continued chain by means of participles. Subjection to the masters is the part of Christian slaves, not a subjection like that of pagan slaves, which is due to mere human compulsion, but one that is due to submission to God’s will. In v. 13 we have: “to every human institution,” one that is only “human” and not a divine arrangement. God did not institute slavery, men did that, but Christian slaves bow submissively to this human bondage.

“In all fear” does not mean in fear of the masters, in dread of punishment from them. The dative ταῖς δεσπόταις depends on the participle and is not equal to a genitive: “in all fear of the masters.” Roman law gave great power to owners of slaves, but Christian slaves conduct themselves “in all fear of God” (1:17), they dread to transgress his will and to sin against him. “The houseslaves” and “the masters” name these classes objectively. The former is a nominative and not a vocative although vocatives often have the article. Our versions have translated this nominative as a vocative.

It was comparatively easy to live under good and gentle masters, yet Christian slaves were to be just as ready to serve and to obey “the perverse,” τοῖς σκολιοῖς, “crooked,” those who order one thing now and just about the opposite then. “Froward” (our versions) makes the impression that these masters were contrary, obstinate. Peter refers to masters that were hard to please because they order a thing done in one way, and when it is done that way, scold because they wanted it done another way and thus keep the poor slaves in constant uncertainty because of their whims.

Ἐπιεικής is a beautiful word; it is a companion to πραΰς. The latter is found in the heart, the former is manifested toward others and is always the kindliness of a superior toward an inferior. Trench: “The greatly forgiven servant in the parable (Matt. 18:23) had known the ἐπιείκεια of his lord and king; the same was therefore justly expected of him.” We may translate this word “gentle” or “kindly.” Whether their masters made it easy or hard for them, Christian slaves were to be submissive: not presumptuous in the one case, not grumbling and surly in the other.

19) For this is grace, if because of consciousness of God one bears up under griefs, suffering wrongfully. For what sort of reputation (is it) if sinning and getting cuffed you shall stand it? But if doing good and suffering you shall stand it, this (is) favor with God.

The motive that should prompt slaves to be subject to even perverse masters is shown by pointing to what this means for them in regard to God, which also comforts and cheers them in their trying position. The “if” clause is in apposition to “this,” and χάρις=“favor” (not “thankworthy” or “thank,” A. V. and margin; not “acceptable,” R. V.). The action described in the “if” clause assures the Christian slave of God’s favor.

The first meaning of συνείδησις is “consciousness,” “co-knowledge”: “The word would seem to have been ‘baptized’ by Paul into a new and deeper connotation, and to have been used by him as equivalent to τὸ συνειδός—‘conscience’ ” (M.-M. 604). Since it is here construed with the objective genitive, we render “because of consciousness of God” in preference to our versions’ rendering of the genitive: “for conscience toward God.” “Conscience” alone is not sufficient, for even pagans have a conscience; Peter has in mind an enlightened conscience, one that judges a person’s acts in connection with God.

If, for the sake of such a conscience, a slave “bears griefs, suffering wrongfully,” this is favor with God. Arbitrary pagan masters may abuse the slave and often do this because he has become a Christian. All such “griefs,” which are inflicted to make the poor, helpless slave suffer, are in reality “grace or favor” that comes to him from God if he, indeed, bears up under (ὑποφέρει) them because he is conscious of God who sees all and will reward him.

20) Peter adds the negative side and then repeats the positive. “For what kind of reputation (κλέος, Ruf, Ruhm, fame) is it if sinning and cuffed you shall stand it?” Suppose this Christian slave, whose master keeps abusing him, should become resentful and, instead of keeping conscious of God (obeying his conscience), should sin against it and cease to do his best for his master and thus get cuffed, slapped, fisticuffed since this is his lot under his mean master anyway—what kind of a reputation would that be for him as far as God is concerned? Our versions have κλέος=“glory” because they could perhaps find no better word; the word=“report, rumor,” which, when it is spread=“fame.” Could God look with favor on such action?

The two “if” clauses are placed chiastically. We should also note that in v. 19 the emphasis rests on the phrase that mentions the conscience and thus in the case of the other two “if” clauses on sinning (against conscience) and on doing good and not on the two secondary participles “being cuffed and suffering”; for, as v. 19 shows, this abuse is the poor slave’s lot under his ugly master in any case. His choice lies between resentment (“sinning” against what his Christian conscience tells him) and suffering in that way and losing God’s favor or doing good to his master (as his conscience tells him) and suffering in this way and thus continuing in God’s favor. The choice should not be difficult to make. His master will not show him favor but only abuse. God will show him favor if this slave keeps true to his Christian conscience; he himself forfeits this divine favor if he resents his master’s treatment and thus sins against God. The two ὑπομενεῖτε do not mean “shall take it patiently” but simply “shall endure or stand it.” From “anyone,” which he used in v. 19, Peter advances to the personal plural “you”; the future “shall stand it” is future to the participle when the cuffing and the suffering come.

Verses 19 and 20 are closely connected and are worded with concise precision, especially in regard to the emphatic placement of the διά phrase and of the participles. Suffering runs through the three statements: this slave and any of the readers who are under such masters will have to suffer and be cuffed and knocked about in any case. That, too, is why πάσχοντες in v. 20 reverts to πάσχων in v. 19 with κολαφιζόμενοι intervening. When this feature of Peter’s style is noticed, his meaning will become clear.

21) For for this you were called because also Christ suffered in your behalf, leaving behind for you a writing-copy in order that you may follow his tracks—he the One who did not do sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; he the One who, being reviled, kept not reviling in turn; suffering, kept not threatening but kept committing (himself) to the One judging righteously; he the One who his own self carried up our sins in his body on the wood in order that, having ceased to exist for the sins, we may live for righteousness; he the One with whose stripes you were healed!

Τοῦτο has the same force as the two τοῦτο in verses 19 and 20, “for this,” namely not merely to suffer, not merely to do good to others, but to do good and to suffer for and while doing it. We see how well this applies to slaves who were maltreated by their masters, often only because they had become Christian and in spite of the good, conscientious service which they rendered. Such poor slaves Peter points to the example of Jesus, whom they were called to follow by the gospel.

While Peter points to Jesus’ example for these slaves in their distressful condition in order to keep them true to their saving call, this blessed example has value for all of his readers and also for all of us to this day. For this all of us are called to suffer and to be abused while we as followers of Christ conscientiously do good to others. By thus holding up the example of Jesus, Peter by no means makes him only an example as rationalists and modernists do. From start to finish Peter presents Jesus, our example, as our Savior, who, by becoming our example, also enables us to follow his example by ridding us of our sins by bearing them for us and thus placing us into a new life.

Ὅτι=“because”; it is not declarative “that.” The reason these slaves are called “for this,” namely to suffer while doing good, is due to the fact that they are called to follow a Savior who, in order to save us and to do us the highest good, suffered infinitely more for our sins. There is, of course, a great difference. It is not merely the fact that his example is perfect in every way while our following is always imperfect, but the fact that his suffering for our good was expiatory while ours, however severe it may be, cannot be that, need not be that. His expiation is complete.

“Also Christ suffered in our behalf” is to be understood in the sense of 3:18: “because also Christ suffered once for sins, One righteous instead of unrighteous ones,” etc. We see that ὑπέρ, “in behalf of,” means no less than “instead of.” We reserve the fuller exposition for 3:18. By all this suffering of his the Christ who suffered thus leaves us a ὑπογραμμόν (found only here in the Scriptures), a writing or a drawing that is to be placed under another sheet and to be retraced on that upper sheet by the pupil, “writing to be used as a perfect model for copy.” The ἵνα clause explains by using another figure: “in order that we may follow his tracks,” ἴχνος, the German Spur, footprints left in the soil. The aorist means “actually follow.” We must go the way the Master went. When he was doing the highest good for others he suffered; this is the reason that our call obligates us to suffer in our humble way when we do good to others for conscience’s sake.

22) Four relatives follow. All four are not mere relatives but have demonstrative force, a use of the relative that is quite regular, and one that is the more assured here because of the emphatic repetition. So we do not translate with a common “who” but with “he, the One who.” “He did not do sin,” sin of any kind; the aorist states the great fact as such; he was absolutely sinless.

“Neither was guile found in his mouth,” not even this trace of sin. Peter uses Isa. 53:9: “because lawlessness (ἀνομίαν, LXX) he did not do, nor guile in his mouth”; yet Peter does not quote, he only restates. He has already described Christ as “a lamb blemishless and spotless” in 1:19. Note the reference to “all guile” in 2:1 and “not speaking guile” in 3:10. The thought agrees with James 3:2, that sin of any kind will show itself first of all by means of the tongue. Peter’s use of Isaiah 53 is so pertinent because he has used ἁμαρτάνοντες in v. 20, and because maltreated slaves would be tempted to use “guile” to deceive their masters in order to escape being cuffed. These slaves, like all of us, must ever look at Christ who was without sin and guile.

The Gospel records substantiate what Peter says. Jesus stands forth as the sinless One. In all his clashes with his cunning enemies no trace of evasion, guile, deceit, trickery is found, nothing but the pure, holy truth; with that alone he discomfited them. Some think that “was found” refers to his trial before the Sanhedrin when all the false witnesses failed to fasten anything adverse upon him and when, with his life at stake, he made oath to the truth that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. On Christ’s sinlessness compare Luke 23:41; John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15.

23) The second demonstrative relative selects two points of the sinless conduct of Jesus, which may refer to Isa. 53:7, a lamb not opening his mouth: reviled, Jesus did not retort with reviling; suffering, he did not reply by threatening; instead of this he was silent and committed himself to God, the One who judges righteously. Here we have three descriptive imperfects which stand out amid the simple aorists of fact. They, too, state facts but present them as on a moving film, the present participles letting us picture the scenes of reviling and suffering, the imperfect verbs letting us dwell on the silent victim as no reviling, no threatening reply issues from his lips. Peter has in mind the scenes of the great passion in which the provocation to retaliate was extreme. We think especially of the mockery and the abuse of the Sanhedrin, of the scourging and the mockery of the soldiers, and of the mockery and the reviling under the cross. Some think of the patience of Jesus, but Peter says nothing about this although Jesus suffered in perfect patience.

Παρεδίδου has no object and is not reflexive but active. The Germans can help themselves by translating stellte es heim and leave “it” undefined. Since a personal object is used in juridical connections, our versions appear to be correct when they supply this object in their English translations: “he committed himself,” which is better than “his cause” (margins). The application of this example of Jesus to maltreated slaves lies on the surface: let them ever commit themselves to him who judges righteously and keep their hearts and their lips from muttering reviling and threatening replies.

24) The third demonstrative relative states that all this sinless suffering of Christ, which is such an example for those who are called to Christ and must suffer, was a suffering for them, to rid them of their sins, to give them a new life in which they may live for righteousness. The point is not the fact that there were wicked men on earth when Christ lived here, and that he suffered terribly at their hands, and that there are still wicked men, and that some of us, like these helpless slaves, also suffer much from them; but that what Christ suffered was suffered in our behalf (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, v. 21), was inflicted upon him by our sins, from which to save us he died on the cross. The example of Christ will be of no avail unless we note his expiation of our sins, get free of them through him, get into the new life, and so live in the true righteousness and patiently endure, like Christ, what men inflict upon us. Peter is not a moralist, he preaches the full gospel of expiation, substitution, and regeneration: “he the One who his own self carried up our sins in his body up on the wood in order that,” etc.

Ἀναφέρω is a ritual term. We see it so used in Lev. 14:20 (LXX, ἀνοίσει ἐπί, shall bring up upon the altar) and in James 2:21, ἀνενέγκας ἐπί, “having brought Isaac, his son, up upon the altar.” The verb thus tells us that Christ made a sacrifice. The object is placed forward for the sake of emphasis, and ἡμῶν and αὑτός are juxtaposed: “the sins that are ours he himself carried up in his body,” etc. Peter speaks as his old teacher, the Baptist, did in John 1:29, 36. Himself sinless, Jesus carried up our sins and acted as our substitute. Yahweh laid on him the inquity of us all, Isa. 53:6, made his soul (life) an offering for sin (v. 10), to bear their iniquities, pouring out his soul (life) unto death (v. 11, 12). Peter is exact: Christ carried up our sins “in his body” (Heb. 10:5: “a body didst thou fit for me”). We see Christ on his way to Golgotha, his body loaded with all our sins, bruised, broken, suffering, to die the bloody death on the cross.

Αὑτός, “he himself” (emphatic) carried up our sins—voluntarily. For this he had become incarnate. Ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, “upon the wood” (“tree,” our versions), is highly significant (Acts 5:30; 10:39), for Gal. 3:13 points out the fact that to be hung on wood (a post or gibbet) means no less than to become accursed according to Deut. 21:23: “Accursed everyone that hangs on wood.” He took the curse of our sins on his own body and by his sacrificial death on the wood expiated the curse in our stead. What is the suffering which we now endure compared to that? Since Christ’s suffering is expiatory and sacrificial it is not only far greater but also entirely different from our poor sufferings. Our sins, guilt, curse he bore, they brought him to the wood; shall we, then, not quietly bear our suffering and follow in his tracks?

This he did “in order that we, having ceased to exist for the sins, may live for the (true) righteousness.” Ἀπογίνομαι is rare and is used as the opposite of γίνομαι which explains the dative ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις: “having ceased to exist for the sins.” To cease to exist is thus taken to mean “to die” (our versions); but this is inexact, for then Peter, like Paul, would have used the verb “to die”; “to cease existing” for something is stronger and more to the point. To state that “to die” is a correct translation because “may live” follows (these two being opposites) is only to say that Peter should have used the verb “to die,” but he does not use it even with reference to Christ. The aorist means actually ceasing to exist even as the aorist ζήσωμεν, means actually to live (not “might live,” R. V., which is too potential). Peter intends to state that he and his readers have actually ceased to exist for the sins and are thus actually to live for the righteousness, the one that is such in God’s judgment.

This cessation occurred by repentance and faith, and thus this new life for righteousness began. It is specious to argue that the sins for which we ceased to exist are past sins because they are the ones which Christ carried up upon the wood. Christ atoned for all our sins, and we should not date them.

Shall we regard also the fourth relative as a demonstrative? This is usually not done even as the other three are not so regarded. Yet this last relative is stronger when it is regarded as a demonstrative: “he with whose stripes you were healed” (using Isa. 53:5). This fourth pronoun, a genitive, rounds out the great statement about Christ. The dative of means τῷ μώλωπι is collective so that we translate it with the plural “stripes.” This reference to “stripes” is so appropriate because slaves, too, were whipped and scourged, and this paragraph is intended especially for maltreated slaves. The expression is highly paradoxical because stripes, which make bloody welts and lay even the flesh bare, are said to have wrought healing. It is solved by remembering that they were administered on Christ’s body and thus healed us.

It has been well said that here we again have the doctrine of Christ’s vicarious, substitutionary suffering. We see no reason for inserting the idea “healed of our disease,” Isaiah mentions griefs and sorrows but not disease. Peter’s thought concerns the wounds that sins inflict on us; these were healed by means of Christ’s wounds. The healing stripes of Christ save us from eternal death (Luke 12:48, πληγαί); any Christian slave may then well bear the blows which his ugly master inflicts on him.

We cannot approve the interpretation: “Christ has borne our sins, thus others’ sins, and therewith intended to bring about our conversion. Thus also Christian slaves and Christians in general should bear and suffer others’ sins, the wrong done them by the adversaries of their faith, and do this also with the intent, if possible, of converting them.” Our suffering from other men’s sins is never expiatory. Christ’s bearing fremde Suende is never a true parallel to our bearing fremde Suende. It is dangerous to say so. Peter does not hint that abused slaves are to bear their abuse with missionary intent; “doing good” in v. 20 means rendering sincere, beneficial service as slaves and cannot be taken to mean more than this.

25) “For” is explanatory of not merely the last relative clause but of all four of these clauses: For you were as sheep wandering astray but turned yourselves now to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. Peter appropriates still more of Isa. 53, in this first clause a part of v. 6. It is argued that because “sheep” is used, Peter’s readers cannot be Gentiles but must be Jewish Christians who were in the fold as sheep and then wandered away and have now returned. John 10:16: “Other sheep have I, which are not of this fold; them also must I bring,” is brushed aside with the remark that Peter lived entirely in the Old Testament. These were Gentile Christians who were at one time pagan, who wandered astray like sheep without a shepherd. The tense is not periphrastic; πλανώμενοι is only a descriptive participle that is derived from πλανάω, “to make wander away,” thus the passive (used in the middle sense) means “to wander astray.”

The passive of ἐπιστρέφω is also used in the middle sense although the passive “were turned” would be fitting here; the form is the second passive. The aorist simply states the past fact to express which the English uses the perfect: “did turn yourselves now” means “now” since Christ has borne your sins. The use of but one article makes both nouns a unified designation: “the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.” Now these slaves who are being addressed by Peter, like all other readers, are under Christ who is their Shepherd. We need not quote all the passages which call Christ our “Shepherd” and state all that we thus have in him. By doubling the term and adding “Overseer” Peter makes the thought more emphatic. Wandering sheep have no one to look after them and are thus doomed to perish; Christ looks after his sheep. The rendering “bishop” is inadequate because it suggests the much later ecclesiastical use of this word.

Πρεσβύτερος, “elder,” and also ἐπίσκοπος are used in the New Testament with reference to the pastors of the church; Peter’s use of the latter word with reference to Christ has nothing in particular to do with this congregational office. Peter has in mind only the general figure of sheep who once went astray and had no one to guard them and then came to Christ who cares for their needs. The thought that the slaves who are compelled to suffer at the hands of their masters have Jesus as their Shepherd and Overseer is one of great comfort to them. His gentle hand keeps them, and he is not unmindful of their hard condition. To be sure, ἐπίσκοπος denotes one who is placed over us; but, compared with πρεσβύτερος, it is a term that denotes service; the thought of dignity is far more prominent in the latter term.

C. Tr Concordia Triglotta. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church, German-Latin-English. St. Louis, Mo., Concordia Publishing House.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.

G. K. Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Nonliterary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.